Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2024 [1].

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a former FA. It is about the monastery in Kyiv, which was rebuilt since its destruction in the 1930s. The article about the monastery and its beautiful cathedral has been extensively expanded. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • As Ukraine does not have freedom of panorama consistent with Wikipedia's definition of freedom, all images of 3D works (including the building itself) will need to include a tag for the original work.
@Nikkimaria: Understood, but there is is discussion here that I think makes the situation with this monastery less clear cut. I have replaced one of the article's images with the one that was discussed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the images of the reconstructed parts of the monastery have now been removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several 3D works still need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tags added. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still some missing, eg File:Kiev_khmelnitsky.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Image removed. There were several tags there, and I have no idea why you still think another is required. Please advise which other images in the article still do not meet the FA criteria, and I will remove them as well. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kyev_Zakrvsky_map_02.png (here) needs an author date of death. Ditto File:Plan_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery_in_Kyiv.jpg (here)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, looks like one of the authors listed died less than 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tag replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kyiv_Pechery_Kalnofoysky_Athanasius_Teraturgema,_1638.jpg (here) needs a US tag. Ditto File:Kyiv-Michael-monastery.jpg (here).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Київ._Михайлівський_Золотоверхий_собор.jpg (here): which rationale from the Russian tag is believed to apply?
2 (a). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Cathedral_Church_of_St._Michael's_Golden-domed_Monastery.jpg (here),
@Nikkimaria: I have changed the tag, do you agree with the one I have used? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:1914, Kyiv—text amended to make this more obvious. Do you agree with the tag?
FYI, pings don't work if they're not signed. Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cossacks_of_Haydamatsky_Kosh_of_Slobid_Ukraine_near_the_St._Michael's_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg (here).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tag replaced. Was it not first published in 1918? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source saying it was? The source link provided appears to simply state it was taken then. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No source found after an extensive search, so image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Румовища_собору_Михайлівського_золотоверхого_монастиря_після_підриву_14_серпня_1937_року.jpg (here) needs a US tag.
Image (dated 1937) now removed from article. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Michael_of_salonica.jpg (here).
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Carl_Peter_Mazer_-_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here and here): when and where was this first published?
Both drawings were made in 1851 for a project that never materialised. They are to be found in an album now at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm. Commons pages edited accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the project never materialized, when were they published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why you are asking about works of art being published, as most works of art are never 'published'. Imo this tag is correct—if I am wrong, please let me know which is the correct tag to use for these drawings. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking about publication because publication is what matters in most instances for US copyright status. For example the current tagging indicates that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929." Do we know that that happened? If no, then to figure out the appropriate tag to replace that with, we need to know what the first publication known is. This applies to several other works as well - we can't assume date of creation and publication are the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: If Mazér died in 1884 and his 1951 drawings were never published but have subsequently made available on the internet in Ukraine, which tag do you advise I use for them? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When were they made available on the internet? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The link from WikiCommons states "05 . 04 . 2022". Amitchell125 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the earliest publication, {{PD-US-unpublished}} might apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Refectory_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here): if this is dated to the 1930s it can't have been published before 1929. Ditto File:Economic_Gate,_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery.jpg (here),
Both images now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement image found to depict the Economic Gate. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status of this photo in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:Ceremonial_kissing_of_the_holy_remains_of_St._Barbara_(St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Monastery,_Kyiv).tif (here).
Image replaced with similar photograph (known author, known date of publication). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lithograph_of_Mikhailovsky_Golden-Domed_Monastery._Kyiv.jpg (here) needs an author date of death and info on first publication.
Date already provided, but author not able to be identified. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the work dates to 1911 and the author is not able to be identified, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Where was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the website (I searched but have so far not found any further information). Tag replaced.Amitchell125 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This tagging requires that the work was published in a certain place by a certain date - can that be verified to have happened? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, so image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto File:V._Nikolaev_-_drawings_of_the_iconostasis_of_St._Michael's_Golden-Domed_Cathedral_in_Kyiv.jpg (here).
Done. The best date to be found is still "1880s", though. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a creation date or is that known to be a publication date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose simply due to the volume of issues - happy to revisit if they can be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above issues addressed, hopefully. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FromSupport from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll look in over the next day or so, Tim riley talk 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First comment after an initial read-through: we need to be clear which language the article is supposed to be in. At present we have a mish-mash of English and American spellings: BrE centimetres, centre, metres, remodelled, storey, and traveller alongside AmE center, colored, colorless, honoring, neighborhood, remodeled, and sepulcher. Those the ones I spotted, but there may be more. Either BrE or AmE throughout, please. Tim riley talk 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: BrE now in place as recommended, and rest of article checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a second perusal I have no further comments. One or two things in the prose I'd have written differently but there's nothing that calls for objections from me. The content of the article is not within (or anywhere near) my area of expertise but to my eye it looks balanced, comprehensive and well and widely sourced, and it is beautifully illustrated. Having reviewed other articles by the nominator I feel confident that the content meets the FA criteria and that once the language is sorted out I shall be able to support. Tim riley talk 09:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add my support. A top-notch article, it seems to me. I look forward to its appearance on our front page. Tim riley talk 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review and support from Gerda

[edit]

I'll look now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead makes sense, but I'll return to it after reading the rest. The infobox has a bit too many ill links for my taste, but that's no problem. The headers and article structure look fine. I'd probably integrate the one See also item as a link in the article.

Reading with pleasure, there are only tidbits:

Frescoes

  • Mary is linked here, but wasn't further up.
Link moved. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead proves fine. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. This just looks like a random website to me - can we trust that it reflects the encyclopedia? I see lots of Ukrainian news websites in the source list, does anyone know whether they are reliable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll check the dictionary entry. Any news websites that were used cited non-controversial information, and seem quite reliable to me. Is there a particular reference that concerns you? Amitchell125 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entry seems fine, see the identical text here. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing specifically, just that my familiarity with Ukrainian news isn't great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24

[edit]

Happy to review this. May be later this week. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been delayed, but should be able to look at this either tomorrow or Wednesday. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments below:
  • Generally, I applaud the depth of research present here. Given the variety of sources, and the vast amount in Ukrainian, I'm convinced that this article is worthy FA-worthy in its coverage and survey of the relevant literature.
  • When speaking about the time of Iziaslav I, could something be said to explain to what nation/empire Kyiv was controlled by? I.e. a mention of Kievan Rus'. Green tickY Done. AM
  • "wealthiest monasteries in Ukraine"—again, what is "Ukraine" here? Perhaps "in what is now Ukraine"? Green tickY Sorted. AM
  • Could the ref for Tagebuch des Erich Lassota von Steblau have an orig-date/year=? Green tickY Done. AM
  • There's a few architectural terms in Lassota's quote, which I suggest be linked, e.g. cupola and choir. Green tickY Done. AM
  • You have "Saint Sophia" and "St. Sophia"—I'd stick to one. Green tickY Done (should be St Sophia). AM
  • aisle could be linked, given its specific meaning for churches. Green tickY Done. AM
  • II don't understand what "low-strength soil" means—is there a better way to explain it? Green tickY Sorted. AM
  • "To prevent public protests, the art critics ... were arrested"—not entirely sure of this meaning either; are you saying that these art critics were expected to oppose the demolition, so were arrested before they could say anything? Or had they already commented on it? Green tickY Done. AM
  • I'm wondering if the "Restoration" should also be a subsection of "history"; otherwise the "History" section alone is incomplete, and makes it seems like its history ends at demolition. Alternatively, the "History" section could be renamed "History [of original building (or something?)] Green tickY Done, let me know what you think. AM
  • Similarly, the "In modern Ukraine" seems strange as its own section. Green tickY Agreed, text now moved. AM
  • Could Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes somehow be linked when the "In the 1880s, the Russian art historian Adrian Prakhov discovered" paragraph begins?
  • I'm afraid I don't think I'll have time to read more in depth, but I've skimmed through the rest and found no other issues. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: All the above now addressed, apart from one comment—sorry, I don't understand this last one. Could you explain it please? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aza24, is there any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support this article.
@Amitchell125, as for the last comment (a minor observation, which does not effect my support): when I read Prakhov's discovery in the 19th century section, I'm wanting to see a link to the frescoes in question. Since those frescos are mentioned later in the article (in the Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes) section, I'm wondering it the 19th-century could somehow link to the Cathedral artworks (pre-1935)#Frescoes. – Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ——Serial Number 54129

[edit]

In passing, Amitchell125, and without wanting to politicize anything, the history sections overall only bring us up to the early/mid-2000s. Obviously, the elephant in the room is current events, and the reader will almost certainly want to know how the monastery fares at the moment. Does it still stand? Has it been repurposed? Etc. There is a bit of a dearth of information overall from ~2002, and considering it was consecrated in memory "of all the Ukrainian victims of Soviet repression", it begs the question even more. Also, for example, the present tense is used—for example, where "12 bells that are tuned chromatically" and "and can play 23 well-known Ukrainian melodies". Really? Is it still playing 23 Ukranian melodies? According to the BBC, it's taken a bit of a battering. In a similar vein, why no images of the post-1997 restored cathedral, in its blue and gold? I saw the discussion with Nikkimaria above, but at least one would be available under NFCC, I would've thought, being literally "an illustration of the topic of the article in question", etc. I mean, the whole of Kyiv has been listed by the UN as a site of World Heritage "in danger". Apologies if I've confused/got confused by anything. But if not... what. ——Serial Number 54129 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Serial Number 54129: Thanks for the above. I will check for any more recent information directly relating to the monastery (e.g. the bells, the effects of the war), and any national events that have taken place there since it was rebuilt. The BBC article doesn't seem to mention the monastery, so I'm unsure what you are referring to, please explain.
The issue with the images of the new buildings cannot I think be helped—as I understand it, the freedom of panorama rules for Ukraine prevents any image of a modern building being used for the article unless I have permission from the architect. @Nikkimaria: do the NFCC allow one image of the post-1991 monastery to be used? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, with an appropriate rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see if I can produce something. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty to chose from... ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the image I have used. The problem is that the Commons images of the modern monastery are in WikiCommons because they are considered to be public domain, except that none of them are, of course! Amitchell125 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Leaning oppose on the grounds of 1A. The most recent discussion on its history still stops pretty much at the turn of the century, following its restoration, and nothing whatsoever about anything from the last 20 years. The nom told us nearly three weeks ago that they would "check for any more recent information directly relating to the monastery (e.g... the effects of the war)". That is the obvious elephant in the room. It cannot take that long to check for information on the role of the main cathedral of the most important city in the biggest war the region has known since 1944. I even provided indicative sources myself; there are presumably others that the OP has easier access to than I do. ——Serial Number 54129 09:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above. The source you provided about the damage sustained to the monastery was about a different building, and the above discussion about using images of the current monastery should explain why there are no free use images possible (so I added one under the fair use policy). I know I haven't responded fully to your previous comments, but I thought you had finished "passing by".
Regarding the history section, the monastery complex hasn't been notably affected by many current events since it was rebuilt—imo wars do not need to be mentioned in architectures articles unless the topic is damaged/occupied/repurposed/rebuilt, etc. The article should focus on the buildings. I will however be adding how the monastery was used as a hospital during the Revolution of Dignity. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The source you provided about the damage sustained to the monastery was about a different building": I was providing an example of the fact that sources are out there that touch on the point I was making, not that it was the only article available. It is up to you, per 1C, to ensure that you have comprehensively covered the literature. The source I provided suggests otherwise, as there are clearly others.
Why do you keep mentioning the image? I did not, in my edit of 11:04 today. That would muddy the waters since it has already been resolved.
Re. your opinion on "architectural articles". I do not know what these are unless the article title informs me. See WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. There's nothing wrong with an architectural article per se (thinking, this, or this (although I note that, for the former at least, history is effectively synonymous with the architecture. Perhaps unsurprising when if anything physically damages a building—such as might happen in a *cough* war—that will almost inevitably affect the architecture, if only detrimentally)). But this is both. You spend literally half the article already discussing its history; you cannot stop in 2001 or whatever. Per 1A, the article should be as up-to-date as possible. Unfortunately, it is not yet. ——Serial Number 54129 13:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per SN, I find it surprising that the extensive history of the building goes no further than 2001. Can you assure us that there have been no noteworthy events connected to the building during the past 23 years? Pinging @FAC coordinators: for information and possible contradiction. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125 Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As this is in Br Eng, "stylized" should be "stylised". Green tickY Done. AM
  • Why is there a parenthetical reference for footnote 9? I thought these had been deprecated. Green tickY Done (it was the work of another editor). AM

That's my lot – a lovely article for which I thank you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words​—both issues now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

What's with the 'better source needed' tag under Rebuilt bell tower? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator hasn't responded in a timely manner and a registered oppose hasn't been satisfactorily resolved, archiving this.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/St._Michael%27s_Golden-Domed_Monastery/archive1&oldid=1226557712"